standard of evidence

[Simon Moon]

no, I don't. as I've said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. if theism lacks substantiating evidence, all that shows is that the proposition hasn't been established to be true.

You are correct. A god or gods may exist, despite the lack if evidence.

What the lack of demonstrable evidence leads to is no justification to BELIEVE that gods exist. Atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

but that doesn't automatically mean it's false or unlikely. if it did, you would have a conundrum when people say "theism is more rational because there's no evidence against it." you can't play this one sided street game. if some logical entailment applies to one side, it must apply to the other as well.

Yes, a god may exist. As soon as the claim is supported by demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument, I'll believe it. Not a second before.

You're shifting the burden of proof. Theists are the one claiming the existence of an entity. They're the ones that have to meet the burden of proof.

I don't think other religions have met the burden of proof, but I think Christianity has.

Special pleading much?

so because it's old it's less useful? do you think that about Aristotle's three laws of logic: identity, non-contradiction, and exclusive middle? I think those are the most useful concepts we could think of and without them we can't establish any truths. I don't discredit them because they're old, or possibly poorly transmitted.

Aristotle's 3 laws stand or fall on their own merit. They are not dependent on who said them, when they recorded, or any supernatural claims.

The Gospels are drastically different in that they make supernatural claims, and much of what they say depends entirely on those claims.

irrelevant and non sequitur. quantum mechanics was a field that explained quite a bit but had way more questions than answers. just because the answer provokes a "bigger mystery" doesn't make it any less right.

But with QM, it's constantly is being explained with greater accuracy. It also makes predictions and there is beautiful and coherent math that supports it.

I understand the God of the gaps fallacy. but i'm not saying "I can't find evidence for X therefore God." my arguments would look like this: "we have evidence x and y which logically and inescapably leads us to proposition Z, which entails the existence of God."

There is nothing in the observable universe or the origin of the universe that 'logically and inescapably' leads to a proposition that entails the existence of a god.

so what? this could just mean God created nature in a self functioning way.

Sure it could. Now, just provide demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence and reasoned argument to support this claim and I'll be compelled to accept it.

it doesn't show the proposition of God to be any less likely.

When there is no necessity to evoke a god to explain the natural universe, it sure does.

the funny thing is all of those even if they are true (which some of them are) they don't at all substantiate the proposition of God being extraordinary, or even less likely for that manner.

When natural explanations are available, any supernatural explanation is extraordinary by definition.

"I have a pet dog". Extraordinary or ordinary claim?

"I have a pet invisible dragon". Extraordinary or ordinary claim?

See, it is not too hard to tell the difference.

so you're saying an extraordinary claim is determined consistency with preconceived knowledge. the problem is all that knowledge has a potential of being wrong. you could think for the longest time "maggots spontaneously generate from raw meat" but that doesn't make the person who says "no they don't" subject to any more extraordinary evidence than any other claim. every claim is subject to a standard amount of evidence, regardless of how extraordinary they may seem.
secondly, if the proposition "God exists" is infinitely extraordinary requiring infinitely extraordinary evidence, then that makes the negating proposition "God does not exist" un-falsifiable. and you're trying to tell me this is just rational to believe claims that are un-falsifiable? I think you would quickly change your mind if the same logic was turned against you.
[/quote]

There has never been a single thing that has ever been better explained by a supernatural explanation than a natural one.

Who ever claimed that the proposition that a god exists is infinitely extraordinary?

I am not making, nor do I believe the majority of atheists are either, the proposition that a god does not exist. I am only saying that I do not believe theists proposition that a god does exist has met it's burden of proof.

The time to believe a god exists is when there is demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic to support the claim, not a second before. That is critical thinking and skepticism 101.